Re: Bug#610714: NMU for http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=610714? (auctex)
severity 610714 serious
thanks
Faheem Mitha <faheem@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011, Hilmar Preuße wrote:
>> On 23.01.11 Faheem Mitha (faheem@email.unc.edu) wrote:
>>> I'd like to get a fix uploaded for #610714 for auctex in squeeze.
>>> This should be straightforward. The fix breaks preview with the
>>> version of ghostscript in squeeze (8.71~dfsg2-6.1), and was patched
>>> in upstream CVS in October 2010 (the patch is only to preview.el).
>>>
>> I was a little confused by your phrasing. Above you say that the fix
>> breaks something, i.e. would have side effects. After reading through
>> the bug report I understood that this is not correct.
>
> Sorry for my lack of clarity. It breaks
The lack of clarity was rather about this "it". You meant "the bug
breaks", but actually wrote "the fix breaks".
> In my opinion, preview is a significant part of auctex, and the
> package is much less useful to me without it. And possibly to other
> people. Though I'm still a little puzzled that nobody noticed this
> before.
Indeed, I also suggest to raise the severity of this bug. Or rather, I
just do it.
Although I often use AucTeX without preview - in particular when working
on letters, small texts without math, or doing tests for bug reports,
it's an essential part of AUCTeX when it comes to working on larger,
more complex texts. I also think it is _the_ main feature that
distinguishes Emacs/AucTeX from other TeX editors.
Therefore, having AucTeX with non-functional preview-LaTeX would mean
that I would use upstream's distribution instead of Debian's. I cannot
somehow prove that we two are "representative" users, but still: That
makes it a serious bug.
> I think that getting the fix into a point release ie. 6.1 as a
> backport to 11.85 would be reasonable.
I agree - delaying squeeze because of that would be ridiculous.
Regards, Frank
--
Dr. Frank Küster
VCD Miltenberg, ADFC Aschaffenburg-Miltenberg
B90/Grüne KV Miltenberg
Debian Developer (TeXLive)
Reply to: